X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Sutton <william AT trilug DOT org>
To: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed AT gmail DOT com>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ps -ef difference linux/cygwin (arguments)
In-Reply-To: <f60fe000904290831i4f1a7a0cl9abd875e6c7fb270@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0904291134070.14823@pilot.trilug.org>
References: <20090429081129 DOT GA44103 AT xs4all DOT nl>   <20090429144728 DOT GB12904 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>   <alpine DOT DEB DOT 1 DOT 00 DOT 0904291050430 DOT 14823 AT pilot DOT trilug DOT org>   <20090429150130 DOT GC12904 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>   <alpine DOT DEB DOT 1 DOT 00 DOT 0904291105090 DOT 14823 AT pilot DOT trilug DOT org>  <f60fe000904290831i4f1a7a0cl9abd875e6c7fb270 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com



William Sutton

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM, William Sutton
>> Let's try this one again, and maybe we can be civil instead of
>> condescending and insulting?
>
> Ahh.  You must be new here. :)

I've been using Cygwin for ~ 5 years and monitoring the list for ~ 3 
years, so "new" might be relative.  I can't say I've seen someone insulted 
quite so blatantly in that time :-/

>
> This has come up before; an archive search might save some repetition.
>  But if I understand the argument properly, it's a question of
> compatibility with scripts that expect the Cygwin ps to behave the way
> it does.

Perhaps I should have searched the archive...

>
> The ps command has traditionally differed widely from implementation
> to implementation  - the most glaring example being the BSD style
> options (ps auxgww) vs the SysV style (ps -elf).  The modern Linux
> command attempts to integrate both styles, plus a third innovated by
> the GNU project, but the Cygwin ps command was already established as
> its own animal by the time that happened.  (It also predates Cygwin's
> branding as specifically Linuxlike as opposed to generically
> Unixlike.)
>
> So there are configure scripts, etc. that check to see if the system
> is Cygwin and expect ps to behave in a certain way when it is.  Making
> it act like Linux ps instead would break things, possibly lots of
> things, possibly unmaintained things.
>
> So instead, the procps(1) command is provided as an alternative for
> users who want a Linuxlike ps command on Cygwin.

Thank you for a reasonable explanation :-)

>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed AT gmail DOT com>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/